Econ 522 – Economics of Law
Dan Quint
Fall 2007
Homework 1 Part 1 – Property Law
Due 1 p.m. Thursday, October 11
QUESTION 1 – THE ELGIN MARBLES
Background Material.
(From: Elgin Marbles. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 25, 2007,
from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elgin_Marbles&oldid=160280104 The case is
also discussed at www.cooter-ulen.com under the “Property” link)
The Elgin Marbles, also called the Parthenon Marbles, are a large collection of marble sculptures
removed from the Parthenon at Athens to Britain in 1806 by Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin,
ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1799 to 1803. Taking advantage of Ottoman occupation
over Greece, he obtained a firman [royal mandate] from the Ottoman Sultan to remove movable
sculptures or inscriptions. However, taking advantage of the political situation, he also managed
to remove the famous Parthenon Friezes. The sculptures were deposited in the British Museum,
London in 1816, and in 1936 were placed into the purpose-built Duveen Gallery.
The Elgin Marbles include some of the statuary from the pediments, the metope panels depicting
battles between the Lapiths and the Centaurs, as well as the Parthenon Frieze which decorated the
horizontal course set above the interior architrave of the temple. As such, they represent more
than half of what now remains of the surviving sculptural decoration of the Parthenon: the Elgin
marbles and frieze extend to about 1km when laid out flat, 15 out of 92 metopes; 17 partial
figures from the pediments, as well as other pieces of architecture. Elgin's acquisitions also
included objects from other buildings on the Athenian Acropolis: the Erechtheion, reduced to ruin
during the Greek War of Independence (1821–33); the Propylaia; and the Temple of Athena
Nike. Lord Elgin took half of the marbles from the Parthenon and wax casts were produced from
the remaining ones.
The Greek government claims that the marbles should be returned to Athens on moral and artistic
grounds, although it is no longer feasible or advisable to replace them on the Parthenon. The main
stated aim of the Greek campaign is to reunite the Parthenon sculptures around the world in order
to restore the unity of the monument. Already, two fragments of the monument have returned
from Sweden and Germany. The New Acropolis Museum, designed by the Swiss-American
architect Bernard Tschumi, is designed to hold the Parthenon sculptures arranged in the same way
as they would have been on the Parthenon. It is intended to leave the spaces for the Elgin Marbles
empty, rather than using casts in these positions, as a reminder to visitors of the fact that parts are
held in other museums.
A range of slightly different points have been put by British Museum spokespersons over the
years in defence of retention of the Elgin Marbles within the museum. The main points include:
 the maintenance of a single worldwide-oriented cultural collection, all viewable in one
location, thereby serving as a world heritage centre;
 the saving of the marbles from what would have been, or would be, pollution and other
damage if relocated back to Athens; and

a legal position that the museum is banned by charter from returning any part of its
collection.
Questions.
(a) Would you expect the transaction costs of private bargaining to be high or low in
this case? Why?
(b) Explain the difference between the Normative Coase and Normative Hobbes
approaches to property law. Given your answer to (a), which seems more
appropriate in this case?
(c) Suppose it were decided that Greece had a right (in the words of Calabresi and
Melamed, an entitlement) to the statues. Given your answer to (a), what would
you expect to be the final outcome if this entitlement were protected by injunctive
relief (property rules), damages (liability rules), or inalienability?
QUESTION 2 – WATER RIGHTS
Background Material. (Textbook, p. 157)
Centuries ago in England, the general rule [on water rights] was that rights were vested in the
“riparian owner,” that is, in the person who owned the land on the bank of the river. The riparian
owner’s principal right was to a flow of water past his land. It would be a violation of someone
else’s rights for an upstream user to use the water that passed by his property in such a way as to
reduce the flow to downstream users. The upstream user could not, therefore, divert so much of
the water to his own use that the flow was significantly diminished for those downstream. A
riparian was restricted in his ability to sell water to nonriparians (i.e., people who do not own land
along the water).
However, in the 19th century, this legal arrangement had to be altered because industrial demand
on the natural flow of a river frequently exceeded the supply. In the eastern United States, these
issues were resolved by elaborating the natural-flow theory of water rights that had been adopted
from the English common law. An alternative theory of water rights appeared in the western
United States. Under the reasonable-use theory, the riparian owner is entitled to use the water
flow in any reasonable way. It was deemed reasonable for one owner to use all of the water in a
stream or lake when others are making no use of it. Under the reasonable-use theory, a riparian
owner does not have a right to the natural water flow. Furthermore, a riparian owner may transfer
rights to nonriparians.
Questions.
(a) Explain why a rule which worked perfectly well in pre-industrial England might
have been insufficient after the industrial revolution.
(b) Coase would say that, when transaction costs are low, the initial allocation of
property rights does not affect efficiency. Is that the only difference between the
natural-flow and reasonable-use theories?
(c) Does the law seem to be evolving in the direction of greater efficiency?
QUESTION 3 – FAIR USE
(A variation on question 5.10 in the textbook.)
No one may use a patent without the patentholder’s permission. But in a limited set of
circumstances, others may use copyrighted material without the copyright-holder’s
permission. These circumstances – called the “fair use” exception – allow, for example,
reviewers to quote from copyrighted material without permission, teachers to photocopy
and assign limited portions of copyrighted material to their classes, and musical groups to
include or “sample” copyrighted music in their own compositions.
Explain why it may be efficient for copyright law to allow for such exceptions, but not
for patent law to allow for similar exceptions.
QUESTION 4 – ORPHAN DRUGS
The textbook (pp. 132-133) discusses the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, which granted
unusually strong patent protection to “orphan drugs,” treatments for “any disease or
condition which occurs so infrequently in the United States that there is no reasonable
expectation that the cost of developing or marketing the drug will be recovered by sales.”
(This was later clarified to mean affecting fewer than 200,000 people.) The Act provided
tax credits, accelerated the process of FDA approval, and granted a 7-year period in
which no one else could develop a competing treatment for the same disease.
(a) A regular patent prevents others from marketing the same treatment, but not from
developing a different treatment for the same condition. What do you think was
the rationale for the “exclusivity” clause? What effects would you expect it to
have?
(b) Does this seem like the most efficient way to encourage firms to develop
treatments for diseases that might otherwise go untreated?